The evolving response of the Church in Kentucky to Covington Catholic incident

Covington, Ky., Jan 23, 2019 / 02:39 pm (CNA).- When video emerged on Twitter last weekend, showing a confrontation between a Native American elderly man with a drum and a group of students from Covington Catholic High School, many media commenters accused the students of racism and disrespect.

The original video clip showed a Native American elderly man, later identified as activist Nathan Phillips, drumming and chanting in close proximity to one student, a junior at Covington, who stands with an uncomfortable expression on his face while the students around him chant and do the “tomahawk chop.” Several students can also be seen wearing hats supportive of President Donald Trump, with the slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The incident took place as the students were waiting at the Lincoln Memorial to meet their bus on their way home from the March for Life in Washington, D.C.

As the video went viral, it was roundly condemned by media commenters and some Catholic leaders as racist and antagonistic on the part of the students.

In their initial response on Saturday, Jan. 19, issued just a few hours after the first video emerged, the Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School released a joint statement condemning the actions of the high school students.

“This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion,” they said.

“We know this incident also has tainted the entire witness of the March for Life and express our most sincere apologies to all those who attended the March and all those who support the pro-life movement.”

The statement was supported by Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville and Kentucky’s metropolitan archbishop, who added his own statement condemning the “shameful actions” of the students.

However, both statements, along with the entire websites of the Diocese of Covington and the high school, have since been taken down, after subsequent, longer footage and additional information complicated the original interpretation of the video.

In longer videos, the students appear to have first been provoked by a group called the Black Israelites, who were shouting disparaging remarks at them largely about the Catholic Church and Trump. The videos also showed that the students were approached by the demonstrators from the Indigenous People’s March, including Phillips, which contradicted prior reports that the students had surrounded them.

As additional information emerged, the Diocese of Covington released a new statement on Monday, Jan. 22, in which they announced both the temporary closing of Covington Catholic High School and a third-party investigation into the events at the Lincoln Memorial.

“On Monday afternoon, the Covington Police alerted us that they had intelligence concerning a planned protest, Jan. 22, at Covington Catholic High School and a vigil at the Diocesan Curia. Due to threats of violence and the possibility of large crowds, the Diocese was advised to close Covington Catholic High School, the Diocesan Curia and neighboring Covington Latin School. We thank law enforcement officers for their protection and will reopen when they say it is safe to do so,” it said.

Regarding the incident in Washington, D.C., the new statement took a more measured tone than the first, saying that more facts must be gathered before deciding “what corrective actions, if any, are appropriate.”

“Concerning the incident in Washington, D.C., between Covington Catholic students, Elder Nathan Phillips and Black Hebrew Israelites the independent, third-party investigation is planned to begin this week. This is a very serious matter that has already permanently altered the lives of many people.”

“We pray that we may come to the truth and that this unfortunate situation may be resolved peacefully and amicably and ask others to join us in this prayer. We will have no further statements until the investigation is complete.”

This statement is currently the only part of the website of the Diocese of Covington that is still functioning. By Monday, all other links on the site had been deactivated.

Archbishop Kurtz on Monday released a new statement of support for Bishop Joseph Foy and the Diocese, and noted that the responses to the incident “revealed the regrettable polarization in our Church and in our society.”

He said his original statement, joining with Foys, was “a condemnation of alleged actions, not people. This post replaces that original blog entry with the additional information below from the Diocese of Covington.”

“I do not have jurisdiction in the Diocese of Covington. However, I have sought to act in solidarity with the Bishop of Covington, who is in a position to have the best information about what transpired and who has pledged an independent investigation of the situation. At this time, I am not going to get ahead of the Diocese of Covington’s independent investigation with additional comments,” he said.
He reiterated his confidence in Foys and the school to make the right decisions going forward.

“Whatever the investigation reveals, I hope that we can use this as a teachable moment, learn from any mistakes on the part of anyone involved, and begin the process of healing.”

 


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


18 Comments

  1. “learn from any mistakes on the part of anyone involved,”

    Like, say, jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts?

    “and begin the process of healing.”

    I can’t begin to express how very tired I am of hearing about “the process of healing.”

  2. The Diocese and the school bore false witness against these young men, and acted with rash judgment, participating in the calumny against them.
    The only honorable thing for the Diocese and the school to do is PUBLICLY confess that the condemnation they issued was intentional, willful, and of grave matter, and a serious mistake. Then a PUBLIC apology should be issued to the students.
    According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whoever “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” is guilty of rash judgment, and whoever, “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” is guilty of calumny.

  3. About fifty years ago, as a member of a group of boys from an all male Catholic high school, I attended events in Washington DC. We were wearing ROTC uniforms, and I remember a moment when we were heckled by Vietnam war protesters. Some in our group wanted to respond, but others said, “…just move on, keep moving”. As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best. And, the possible discovery of our actions would have brought the ire of our famously irate principal. We were more concerned about his possible disciplinary action than fulfilling our own tribal loyalties.

    What made us different from the Covington group? “There go I, but for the grace of God”? Possibly… at any rate, cooler heads prevailed in our group.

    My thought is that the Covington group had multiple opportunities to truly defuse the tension, but chose instead to ramp it up by voicing “school spirit” cheers. That is the reason for spirit cheers, after all, right? Yes, express enthusiasm for your cause. We typically use those cheers in a school sports event scenario to “intimidate” the opposing team, but when used in another context, they can be threatening. The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path, and by encouraging respect. Yes, the optics here are, in a word, bad.

    I think about those young men, and about my brotherhood with them, recipients of a fine education. I’m hoping that sooner, rather than later, they come to realize the reality of the situation, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged to participate in the Catholic education system.

    • “The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path”

      That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path. He didn’t; there was a clear path to the monument already. He wanted to get into the boy’s face, and he wanted to cause an incident, or he wouldn’t have been accompanied by cameramen and so forth. You’ve only to look at his group’s attempt to disrupt Mass at the Basilica. The boys did not give him what he wanted, which was a violent reaction; and the boy in whose face he was drumming remained calm and smiling, which was admirable.

      If the boys had moved away from him, it is most likely that he would have followed them or, judging by his record, have claimed that they were disrespecting an elder by walking away.

      There is nothing the boys could possibly have done to make the “Black Israelites” calm down, and their cheer did nothing to provoke the “Black Israelites” because that’s group entire function seems to be to scream insults and everybody who isn’t them, including not only the boys but Indians, whom they were also badgering.

    • The students did nothing wrong. Period. The full tape shows that they were verbally abused by a group of anti-Catholic bigots for an hour and did nothing in response. The phony Vietnam ” vet” who fixed appliances next to Disneyland during his Vietnam tour and ended 4 years in the USMC as a private jumped in the face of the kid for a photo op- as anybody with two synapses can see. The poor kid victimized as a “racist” did what many of us would do- try to ignore the taunts of an ignorant man.
      But hey, what is that to 3 bishops who want to cast the first stone? Too bad the students were not abusing little boys- then these “princes of the Church” would have said nothing.

    • Acting as an apologist for the instigators is not a character trait to be proud of. The next time some thug wants to rob your home while you’re in your bed sleeping by all means diffuse the situation by getting up out of bed and help them loot your belongings.

  4. Another big blunder by the Catholic hierarchy. They jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts just like the mainstream media did. Their revised statement should, at least, have been the first statement, instead of threatening the boys with expulsion. Another example of where the Church ranks are so quick to throw children under the bus, while they continue to close ranks and protect the SHAMEFUL coverup they’ve all engaged in over the years!!!

  5. ALL Diocese and school authorities who bore false witness against the young men must apologize and then resign. There must be a boycott of the church until that occurs.

  6. “That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path, he didn’t…”

    I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?”

    Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident. Their primary purpose, the Right to Life March, has already been relegated to footnote status. Now, Catholics are divided… some in full throated defense of the boys actions; some shaking their heads at the thoughtlessness of the participating boys.

    How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?

    I ask educators to examine the problem closely.

    • “I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?””

      The difference is that there was nobody there trying to set you up and film it. But how *dared* you wear ROTC uniforms when you knew that htere were some people who hated the military?

      “Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident.”

      The *only* thing that caused a controversy was the Indian with the drum and the boys’ reaction to that. Nobody even knew about the Black Hebrew Israelis or whatever they call themselves until the controversy was well under way and the longer video was found. And the controversy was ginned up by selective editing. There was no reason that the boys should have had to walk away. They were doing nothing wrong. When the drummer started his bullying, they *still* did nothing wrong.

      “How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?”

      Pitfalls for standing and smiling? Pitfalls for dancing to a drumbeat? If they had walked away it would have been “How dare they disrespect this well-respected elder by walking away from him?”

      You are blaming the victims, and it’s shameful.

  7. “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”

    Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents? My point is, my group was quite aware of opportunistic media reporters fifty years ago, ready to jump to photo at the first signs of a confrontation. The Covington boys should have had similar awareness.

    Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek. God given, a right given to us at creation with free will. We should more carefully consider it’s practice.

    • “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”

      “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”

      Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.

      Your original statement was, “As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best.” Really? Any response? Any at all? Even just standing there quietly and ignoring them? Manifestly a cheer routine or dancing along with any drums they may have decided to pound would have been inappropriate because you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform in the first place, you know, and provoking them).

      Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame, and I have seen no action that deserve any such blame. You seem to forget that the video that caused all the outrage had nothing at all in it about the Black Isreeli group. Any responses they made to that wasn’t what caused the problem, so you can leave that aside entirely.
      The Indian drummer was not blatantly heckling them at first, as you say the Vietnam War protestors were heckling you. It appears as if at first nobody knew what the drummer was up to; after all, he was unaffiliated with the Black Israeli group, and came out of nowhere, drumming; until he got into their faces and his companion starting making racist comments, why would they have moved, and after that, why should they? And the incident lasted only a few minutes. It would be as if those protestors who were heckling you had been succeeded by somebody who came up to you playing bagpipes or something. Your first thought wouldn’t have been to assume they were there to cause trouble.

      “Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.”

      The boys were the victims of an attempt to make them look bad. I don’t have to “create ‘victims’ of the boys.” That’s already been done.

      “There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek.”

      There is no doubt in my mind that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The boy who was most vilified especially didn’t respond in any way that was blameworthy. He stood there quietly in the face of rudeness and an attempt to make him angry, and he smiled. That actually pretty much *is* turning the other cheek.

  8. “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”

    “Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision.”
    ….
    If you will be kind enough to refer to my earlier posts, you should note that I stated, “some in our group wanted to respond”, (I’ll truthfully admit I was one of those wanting to respond, I never made a “brilliant decision” worth “preening” myself. In fact, I am embarrassed when I recall my actions in the event). A few cooler heads prevailed in our group. You should remember, this was at the height of the war protest era, videos and photos in the news every day, plenty of reporters in DC. And, as I stated, our primary concern was of discovery by our disciplinarian rector. I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.

    “you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”

    We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some. Perhaps that is not equivocal, but since you brought up “provoking”…

    “Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame”

    I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”. I see the words I used… “thoughtless, made a choice not to turn the other cheek, willing participants in a controversial incident, failed to recognize ,and optics are bad.”. Not a single one of my phrases fit the “heinous” or “blame” narrative that is portrayed of my posts.

    I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame. I merely pointed out possible alternative actions, that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.”

    Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart? That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children. Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.

    Peace

    • I said, “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”

      Your reply was, “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”

      Now you’re complaining, “I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.”

      I answered quite clearly. Your said that only if I had been present at your incident would I know if someone was trying to film you to set you up. The implication is that since you were there, you did know whether someone was trying to film you. I still don’t believe that anybody was filming you, for the two reasons I mentioned:

      “Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.”

      You quote me ( ““you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”) and then replied, “We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some.”

      That you actually believed that I was seriously blaming you and your companions for wearing ROTC uniforms tells me a lot about you. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I was engaging in reductio ad absurdam regarding your belief that the boys are to blame for the incident because they wore MAGA hats. I can’t believe that you didn’t reply to me something along the lines of “We had every right to wear our uniforms!” as any normal person would.

      “I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”.”

      You have said that the situation is their fault in essence because unlike you and your companions of ffty years ago, they were not “situationally aware” and weren’t afraid of their disciplinarian principal, so they didn’t scuttle away.

      “I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame.”

      That makes no sense at all.

      “Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart?”

      1. You had a group of hecklers who were angry about the Vietnam War (a political issue which at a stretch at least connected with the fact that you were in uniform) who were probably stupid but also probably sane. You ignored them and moved away (you wrote that someone said “Keep moving,” so it might even have been that you were already moving when they started heckling you, but I can’t tell for sure).

      The boys from Covington Catholic High School were gathering at a designated meeting point. They had insults yelled at them by a group of hecklers who were, to say the least, none too stable mentally, and who were yelling at them and at everybody else in the vicinity, for reasons unrelated to anything the boys were doing or wearing. They could not move away because this was where their buses were meeting them; and there was no reason they should. In any case, the heckling by the group screaming at them really wasn’t an issue, and neither was any response they made. That’s not what went viral.

      2. You knew from the get-go that the hecklers were targeting you, and why. The boys from Covington at first apparently did not realize that the Indian drummer was targeting or attacking them; he was just some guy drumming who came toward them. The incident didn’t last all that long, and even after the drummer was pounding his drum in the face of students some of the group were still not sure that he was attempting to provoke them.

      The hecklers in your case were quite forthright and obvious. The drummer was not, and has since lied through his teeth.

      “That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children.”

      You are ignoring the fact that the boys didn’t cast a stone, even a metaphorical one, at the drummer at all. I can’t think of anything gentler than smiling and not doing anything. The only confrontational approach I saw was on the part of the drummer and his companions.

      “that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.” Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.”

      I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. If someone stole my locked car, parked in a mall parking lot in broad daylight, I’d wish that it had never happened; but that wouldn’t mean that I considered that I should have done something differently, with the implication that it was somehow my fault, perhaps for daring to own a car.

  9. Why do anyone you bother with this hateful astroturfer called Bob. It is obvious he was hired to “hate” in this comment area. I wouldn’t respond …the video speaks for itself. The boys are TOTALLY innocent and acted with great restraint. We should be proud of them. Look into the Indian and his background and you can see why Bob the hater loves him. It’s his reflection.

    • I am astounded that any poster could perceive me as a “hater”, or that my comments are “hateful”.

      Again, look at the words I posted…
      “the optics are bad”, meaning that the boys participation could easily be subject to varying interpretations, some not favorable.
      “I think about those young men and my brotherhood with them, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged…”
      “thoughlessness of the participating boys”
      “boys failed to recognize…”
      “boys should have had awareness”
      …and so on.
      Why should my comments be interpreted as anything more serious than a gentle rebuke to the boys for allowing themselves to be “played” by a group of bad actors? One of those students now expresses a wish he “could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.”. What does that tell you about a real participant’s feelings in hindsight?

      A gentler discourse would provide a great example to students, perhaps allowing them to choose “the high road” rather than sacrificing their self respect for a fleeting moment of tribal gratification.

      Peace

  10. I think this sadly speaks of the cowardice and bad intentions of the Church hierarchy. The politicization of everything by secular progressives has infected the Church. Unfortunately, we don’t have Pope John Paul II to face this threat.

Leave a Reply to Chris Milhouse Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*